Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've never experienced a bad encounter with an LEO, however I was wondering what we are required by law to answer in an encounter that clearly is more that 'just a friendly conversation'?

Am I required to produce ID if asked?

Am I required to produce my GWL if asked?

How much should be said during such an encounter?

What questions should I ask?

Also, I was reading somewhere on the web a while back (can't remember if it was here or somewhere else) that someone was once asked during a stop/encounter by an LEO if he could hold onto the person's firearm for their own safety while they ran a check on the person. If during the course of such a scenario, how should one respond to a 'request' like this from an LEO?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Am I free to go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
Required to produce ID (i.e. drivers license) - yes (assuming your driving)

Required to produce GWL - technically no, but you're required to have it on you (you're left to figure out the gray area there for yourself)

How much should be said during encounter - most people would advise: as little as possible. Generally no benefit to you to be chatty and offering info, answering general questions not related to the stop (e.g. "where are you going"). Naturally, being polite and nice is recommended even when you're looking to minimize the conversation.

Questions you should ask - "Am I free to go", "why am I being stopped", etc.

Firearm - touchy situation - LEOs like to have control over the firearm for their safety (since they don't know you). I like to have control over my firearm because I don't know them. Your firearm shouldn't be taken unless you're armed AND dangerous. LEOs often ignore the last part of that (they feel anyone with a gun is POTENTIALLY dangerous and that's close enough). How much you would want to dispute that with them and resist their seizure of the weapon is up to you. Obviously, if the LEO is determined to take it, there isn't much you can do other that state that it isn't necessary or legal and that you don't consent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
Do not consent to searches and keep DKing's phone number in your phone. Answer questions only in the presence of your attorney.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,929 Posts
RedDawnTheMusical said:
Required to produce ID (i.e. drivers license) - yes (assuming your driving)
The requirement is "exhibited on demand" - through the glass of a closed driver's window counts.

Required to produce GWL - technically no, but you're required to have it on you (you're left to figure out the gray area there for yourself)
Not required to have it on you as of SB308.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
SB308 eliminated the carry requirement for the GWL? We need to update the 'laws in plain english' section on this site then:
Your license will be valid for 5 years and it MUST be in your possession at ALL TIMES when you are carrying a firearm. There is no requirement in the Georgia law to volunteer that you are armed when approached by a LEO...
I would think that even if it were true that we're not required to carry our GWLs, we may have a weapon seized by a LEO since there is no way for them to verify we're licensed (unless we're back to using the GWL as an 'affirmative defense').
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
The law changed from "on your person" to "in your possession"....so whatever that means to ya. :shattered:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
In addition,...........the GWL request must be tied to an "offense", as opposed to a "defense". This means, subject to correction by the more astute, that unless an officer has a RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) that you are committing a crime, he/she shouldn't even ask for a license. If ever confronted, I'd like to ask: "Do you even know that you can't even ask for my license unless you can show that I'm committing an unrelated crime?" "Are you familiar with SB-308 that the Governor signed into law on June 4th?" :handcuffs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,550 Posts
gman said:
I've never experienced a bad encounter with an LEO, however I was wondering what we are required by law to answer in an encounter that clearly is more that 'just a friendly conversation'?

Am I required to produce ID if asked?
...
In Georgia, you are required to give your name and address but not show or even have an ID when a LEO asks. But you will pay in several ways if you take this course.

I think there is a law about prowling around at night on someone elses property that says something about a physical ID and a good explanation will keep you from being arrested.

Oh, and if you read much on this forum you will learn that there is no such thing as a LEO having a friendly conversation with you. He is looking for RAS or PC.
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
RedDawnTheMusical said:
SB308 eliminated the carry requirement for the GWL? We need to update the 'laws in plain english' section on this site then:
Your license will be valid for 5 years and it MUST be in your possession at ALL TIMES when you are carrying a firearm. There is no requirement in the Georgia law to volunteer that you are armed when approached by a LEO...
I would think that even if it were true that we're not required to carry our GWLs, we may have a weapon seized by a LEO since there is no way for them to verify we're licensed (unless we're back to using the GWL as an 'affirmative defense').
If you don't step out of your vehicle with a gun, then you're not required to even have a GWL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
CountryGun said:
I'd like to ask: "Do you even know that you can't even ask for my license unless you can show that I'm committing an unrelated crime?"
LEOs can ask anything they want, at any time. There is nothing illegal about an officer asking for a license at any time. Its up to you to decide if you want to answer or not.
 

·
Yukon Cornelius
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
New2Atlanta said:
gman said:
I've never experienced a bad encounter with an LEO, however I was wondering what we are required by law to answer in an encounter that clearly is more that 'just a friendly conversation'?

Am I required to produce ID if asked?
...
In Georgia, you are required to give your name and address but not show or even have an ID when a LEO asks. But you will pay in several ways if you take this course.

I think there is a law about prowling around at night on someone elses property that says something about a physical ID and a good explanation will keep you from being arrested.

Oh, and if you read much on this forum you will learn that there is no such thing as a LEO having a friendly conversation with you. He is looking for RAS or PC.
cite??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,918 Posts
So actually, short of all of us refusing to show papers, taking the ride and beating the rap in court, there is no way around this. With the anti-gun sentiment, the lack of respect for the law, or outright refusal to except it mentality, how do we get around this ? When it starts at the very top, federal and state level, what do you do ? What can we and what must we do to stop this now ? This battle has been ongoing for how long ?
I understand that not all law enforcement agencies act this way, but some surely do and that is the problem. If it is a state law, then what is the problem with the other agencies ? If our state legislators won't uphold and defend the laws that we, as a people elect them to enact, do we start there ? Should our next house or senate bill include or be just for, this type of law? To make damn sure "all" law enforcement agencies in this state understand the people's right to keep and bear arms, and not to in any way, harass them in any way, shape or form when doing so ? And, if done, the judicial system is soley responsible for such treason acts against the people ? I believe there are way to many fine lines, loop holes and we have to infringe, to find the bad guys, crap in our laws.
Now, if someone calls in a man with a gun, I have no problem showing my gfl to them, they are there to investigate, but that should be the extent of it, right there done and over with. Why should we even need a gfl in the first place? I can understand wanting only law abiding folks carrying, but why tax me with a burdensome price in doing so. If I get arrested for committing a crime, do they charge me for being finger printed and a background check ? When you move to the state of Georgia, they will finger print you and run that through, does the clerk then say, oh that will be an additional 20.00 ?
It seems to me that every little twist and turn is there to try and persuade you to not exercise your Constitutional Rights, by law.
This should be a cut and dried right, with cut and dried actions, against those that would invade and violate your rights. I believe that should start at the top of the chain in the state offices, not left up to interpretation and discretion's at local offices, nor battled out in court at local jurisdictions.
I have no problems having a conversation with any leo, but do not make me out to be a criminal, for I am not, nor do I have to prove I am not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
wow fflintlock all we need now is a closing prayer I think this is what we all are for the 2nd amendment is the only one you have to have written permission to exercise from the state
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks for all the input.

RedDawnTheMusical said:
Firearm - touchy situation - LEOs like to have control over the firearm for their safety (since they don't know you). I like to have control over my firearm because I don't know them.
Exactly. Voluntarily handing over my firearm, LEO or not, would make me quite a bit uncomfortable.

Your firearm shouldn't be taken unless you're armed AND dangerous. LEOs often ignore the last part of that (they feel anyone with a gun is POTENTIALLY dangerous and that's close enough). How much you would want to dispute that with them and resist their seizure of the weapon is up to you. Obviously, if the LEO is determined to take it, there isn't much you can do other that state that it isn't necessary or legal and that you don't consent.
If, say, I was driving and OC'ing and got pulled over for speeding...nothing too excessive...55 in a 45 mph zone, but nonetheless a legitimate stop. The LEO notices my firearm and asks if he can hold onto it during the course of this stop, and that he'll return it to me when we're done. Now up to that point the exchange has been very courteous and respectful. Obviously he doesn't perceive me as an immediate threat (at least nothing has been said or done on my part to warrant that conclusion) or else he wouldn't just be asking.

At this point what should I say or ask? I'm not trying to obstinate or give him a hard time. It's certainly not my intention to escalate the situation any further. And I know he doesn't know me from any other joker out on the street. But I also don't want to just surrender my firearm because he's asking.

"Officer, for my own safety I'm not comfortable voluntarily surrendering my firearm to any person I don't know. I'm lawfully allowed to own this firearm and carry it on my person. I pose no threat you."

If he persists at this point...?

Again, not looking to instigate anything, but neither should a person's right be violated/forfeited...even if only temporarily so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
gman said:
"Officer, for my own safety I'm not comfortable voluntarily surrendering my firearm to any person I don't know. I'm lawfully allowed to own this firearm and carry it on my person. I pose no threat you."
Certainly depends on the officer. There are officers who would be comfortable with you getting out of the car while carrying, and might say something like "Please, just don't touch the gun". And then there are those who would suddenly be "more comfortable" placing you in cuffs. There are no two officers alike. They're not automatons, and their experiences have been very varied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
Whether or not you must surrender your weapon legally depend on few conditions. The first is your consent. The second is your conduct. Here's what a recent opinion said and I encourage you to read the entire case of State v. Jones:
Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous." Silva v. State, 278 Ga. 506, 508 (604 SE2d 171) (2004) (driver leaned under seat as if to conceal weapon and drove recklessly while in that position, then offered implausible explanation for his conduct.) Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger; in fact, the officer candidly acknowledged that the search was merely his standard procedure because any firearm might be stolen. On its face, as noted by Jones, this policy justifies the search of any vehicle occupied by hunters or sport shooters with their firearms, or any pickup truck with a rifle or shotgun on the rear window rack. This is precisely the danger of "carte blanche authority to `secure' all weapons during a routine traffic stop," noted by the special concurrence in Megesi, supra, 277 Ga. App. at 860.
If you want real legal advice then pay for it.
Begin here if you're interested in preserving and asserting your rights: viewtopic.php?p=718220#p718220
There is a ton of videos on youtube concerning interactions with police. I don't think you'll find everything here. If you want to be treated like a citizen then educate yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
smn said:
Begin here if you're interested in preserving and asserting your rights: viewtopic.php?p=718220#p718220
Thanks.

(Edit: Sorry about the duplicate topic. I didn't see that someone else had already asked the same things before. Thanks for referring me there though.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
rmodel65 said:
New2Atlanta said:
gman said:
I've never experienced a bad encounter with an LEO, however I was wondering what we are required by law to answer in an encounter that clearly is more that 'just a friendly conversation'?

Am I required to produce ID if asked?
...
In Georgia, you are required to give your name and address but not show or even have an ID when a LEO asks. But you will pay in several ways if you take this course.

I think there is a law about prowling around at night on someone elses property that says something about a physical ID and a good explanation will keep you from being arrested.

Oh, and if you read much on this forum you will learn that there is no such thing as a LEO having a friendly conversation with you. He is looking for RAS or PC.
cite??
No such requirement in Ga if one is not driving.
Legacy38 explained this in viewtopic.php?f=36&t=32856&p=467832

Legacy38 also pointed out there is the potential issue for a loitering and prowling charge in GA, but the statute requires that an officer must give a person an opportunity to dispel suspicion prior to making an arrest. Refusal to provide ID may be one circumstance in the totally of circumstances that substantiates such a charge, but it alone does not constitute obstruction or loitering and prowling.

Interestingly, SCOTUS has held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) that requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop is not a violation of the 4th Amend. But GA, unlike Nevada, does not have a statute requiring one to identify themselves, making it difficult to be arrested for refusing to identify. Also the Court pointed out that the Fourth Amendment precludes an officer from arresting Terry stop suspect for failure to comply with state “stop and identify†law if officer's request for identification is not reasonably related to circumstances justifying stop.

A Federal case in Georgia recently cited Hiibel. In U.S. v. Farias-Gonzalez 556 F.3d 1181 C.A.11 (2009). Facts: "two plain-clothes ICE agents were patrolling areas of Atlanta for gang activity when they spotted Farias-Gonzalez working on his car. Based on his haircut and tattoos, the agents suspected that he might be a member of a gang. They began to question him, and in the process, one of the agents lifted Farias-Gonzalez's shirt sleeve to see whether he had any other tattoos. Based on his answers, the agents surmised that Farias-Gonzalez was present in the country illegally. The defendant agreed to remove his shirt so that the agents could take photographs of his tattoos. Using a portable electronic fingerprint device, the agents took Lopez-Garcia's fingerprints and determined that he had previously been deported from the United States. At that point, the agents arrested him, took him to the police station, informed him of his Miranda rights, and booked him.

Farias-Gonzalez was charged with illegally reentering the country after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He filed a motion to suppress, contending that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when the agent lifted his shirt sleeve, and he sought to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search. The district court agreed that the search was unconstitutional and, accordingly, ordered the suppression of all of the evidence except for the fingerprint evidence, the photographs of Farias-Gonzalez, and his alien file. The court based its holding on the principle that identifying information obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest is not subject to suppression." (Summary from United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1320 (11th Cir. Ga. 2009))

U.S. v. Farias-Gonzalez said:
The Constitution does not prohibit the Government from requiring a person to identity himself to a police officer (Hiibel)... The police can obtain both photographs and fingerprints without conducting a search under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14-15, 93 S.Ct. 764, 771- 72, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973) (holding that voice and facial characteristics are exposed to public, and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, and that fingerprinting likewise does not constitute a search since it "involves none of the probing in to an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search." (quoting Davis, 394 U.S. at 727, 89 S. Ct. at 1398)).

Additionally, even if a defendant in a criminal prosecution successfully suppresses all evidence of his identity and the charges are dropped, the Government can collect new, admissible evidence of identity and re-indict him.
The district court above selectively quotes parts of cases, such as Davis, where SCOTUS actually held that the Fourth Amendment applied to investigatory detentions and detentions for the sole purpose of obtaining fingerprints and reversed the defendant's conviction. The distinction used by the district court was that in "Davis, the fingerprints were taken to connect the defendants to serious, non-identity related crimes. Here, Farias-Gonzalez's fingerprints were used only as evidence of identity." :roll:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top